D.S. Bajpai, J. - (1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by Brij Kishore Shukla and Babadin Singh praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioners to continue on the post of barrier/men peon and not to terminate the service of the petitioner, as also for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of termination, if any. issued against them. A further prayer has been made for a direction commanding the opposite parties to regularise the services of the petitioners.
(2.) Since the parties have exchanged affidavits and the petition is ripe for hearing we, with the consent of the parties' counsel, proceeded to hear and dispose of the writ petition finally instead of passing a formal order of admission.
(3.) The material facts, as are relevant for decision of the writ petition, in short are that the petitioners were appointed watermen in the year 1979-80 on daily wage' of Rs. 7 per day by the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sitapur Road, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the Mandi Samiti) and were called upon to work as barriermen and peons. Thereafter they were duly selected by a selection committee on 29 March 1982, tor appointment to the post of barriermen (annexure- 1). The petitioners further assert that ever since their appointment on 29 March 1982, they have been working as barriermen/peon uninterruptedly for two years, one month and one day. The petitioners assert that in vie' of goof and efficient work, they were put in the scale pay of Rs. 165-215 plus other allowances admissible to their class of employees which are annexures 2 and 2A to the writ petition. Thereafter with effect from 24 November 1982, the petitioners were placed in the raised pay-scale of Rs. 215-305. It alleged that the opposite parties all of I sudden for no rhyme or reason asked the petitioners on 1 January 1983, that their services were no longer required and the petitioners made several representations to the opposite parties but to no avail. Thereafter on 15 July 1983, a list of 14 persons who had been selected for appointment to the poll of barriermen was circulated by the opposite parties which did not include the name of that petitioners. The petitioners assert that they acquired the status of a temporary servant under S. 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereafter referred to as the Act, and they were entitled for regularisation of their services and their services could not by terminated. The petitioners also raised the plea of discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and violation rule 77 of the rules framed under the Act.;